Some christians claim that cremating a dead body is sinful. How true is this?

It's like going to hell right on earth. It was never a practise of any prophet therefore inhumane.

Did you know that it was the cremation of Jesus Christ that popularise cremation in England? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation_in_the_Christian_World

huxley:

Did you know that it was the cremation of Jesus Christ that popularise cremation in England? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation_in_the_Christian_World

Taken from the wikipedia article => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation_in_the_Christian_World


Cremation was forced into British law when a Welsh doctor, William Price burned his infant son, named Jesus Christ, in a Pagan ritual shortly before 1883 in the historic town of Llantrisant. The doctor was a well known eccentric whose cremation ceremony was initially stopped by people coming home from church. The police returned the partially burnt body of his son on condition that it would neither be buried nor burned. Later that year, Dr. Price reneged on his promise and burned his son's remains. The townsfolk, unhappy with this sacrilege, went in an angry mob to burn out Dr. Price, but were turned back when they discovered only his wife armed with pistols

@Huxley: Have you ever reflected on your own motto at all? It seems to me that the motto of "believing in nonsense, ," speaks to you more than any of us who believe in a deity. You accept everything that is ever said against God; without questioning its validity?

Were the Jews used to cremation in their tradition? If you can not say yes, then stop the nonsensical. Even here in America, a normal Jew will not be cremated. Lance Stevens Adler who is being buried today in Boca Raton, Florida, though not an orthodox Jew, he is not been cremated. I knew him. e was my Corporate lawyer. He was a good lawyer. Kind man in his right. He was always looking out for my well being when he handled my business.

huxley's passionate hatred of God points to the very existence and powerful activity of God.

One cannot hate Someone that does not exist.

imhotep:

huxley's passionate hatred of God points to the very existence and powerful activity of God.

One cannot hate Someone that does not exist.

Nonsense. I have come across several people that have hated fictional characters.

KAG:

Nonsense. I have come across several people that have hated fictional characters.

Have you heard of "beings of reason" (in Metaphysics) before?

Cremation was forced into British law when a Welsh doctor, William Price burned his infant son, named Jesus Christ, in a Pagan ritual shortly before 1883 in the historic town of Llantrisant. The doctor was a well known eccentric whose cremation ceremony was initially stopped by people coming home from church. The police returned the partially burnt body of his son on condition that it would neither be buried nor burned. Later that year, Dr. Price reneged on his promise and burned his son's remains. The townsfolk, unhappy with this sacrilege, went in an angry mob to burn out Dr. Price, but were turned back when they discovered only his wife armed with pistols

In other words, it's a learned culture and there is nothing wrong with it if Christians choose to indulge in it.

Did you know that it was the cremation of Jesus Christ that popularise cremation in England?

Jesus Christ of nazareth was never cremated. He was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb from where he rose after 3 days. Get your facts right for once. He later ascended to heaven.

imhotep:

Have you heard of "beings of reason" (in Metaphysics) before?

No I haven't. Relevance?

Fictional characters, as well as many concepts in pure mathematics are "beings of reason".

imhotep:

Fictional characters, as well as many concepts in pure mathematics are "beings of reason".

So no relevance.

Fictional characters exist --> as beings of reason.
Same with many of the concepts of pure mathematics.

imhotep:

huxley's passionate hatred of God points to the very existence and powerful activity of God.
One cannot hate Someone that does not exist.

KAG:

Nonsense. I have come across several people that have hated fictional characters.

imhotep:

Fictional characters exist --> as beings of reason.
Same with many of the concepts of pure mathematics.

So, no relevance.

KAG:

So, no relevance.

Plenty of relevance. You can hate/love a fictional character precisely because he/she/it exists ---> as a being of reason.

Once again, no one can love/hate a being that does not exist.

imhotep:

Plenty of relevance. You can hate/love a fictional character precisely because he/she/it exists ---> as a being of reason.

Once again, no one can love/hate a being that does not exist.

In what sense are you using the word "exist"? Also, what does a "being of reason" mean?

In my understanding of the word "exist", fictional characters do not exist. What's yours?

KAG:

In what sense are you using the word "exist"? Also, what does a "being of reason" mean?

A "being of reason" exists ----> in the reasoning faculty of the thinker.

KAG:

In my understanding of the word "exist", fictional characters do not exist. What's yours?

I am posting this from the abstract of philosopher's (Francisco Suárez) publication =>

====================================
Beings of reason or non-existent objects have always been a source of mind-boggling paradoxes that have vexed philosophers and thinkers in the past and present.

Consider Bertrand Russell's paradox: if A and B are not different, then the difference between A and B does not subsist. But how can a non-entity be the subject of a proposition?

Or Meinong's paradox: There are objects of which it is true that there are no such objects.

At the root of these troubling conundrums are two basic questions:
What are beings of reason?
What kind of existence do they have?

Francisco Suárez was well aware that a solution to the metaphysical questions concerning the essential character of beings of reason and their ontological status would serve as the key to solving the puzzles and paradoxes just described.

A solution to these metaphysical questions would also bring about an understanding of how we talk about beings of reason and other problems that they give rise to in the philosophy of language.

In this paper, I present Suárez's view on the nature and ontological status of beings of reason and clarify some of the following questions:
What kind of beings (entia) are beings of reason?
What kind of being (esse) do beings of reason have?

This latter concern is related to the following metaphysical issues:
What are real beings?
What is the nature and ontological status of possible beings?
What is the distinction between real beings, actual beings, and possible beings?
=============================

imhotep:

A "being of reason" exists ----> in the reasoning faculty of the thinker.

So it doesn't really exist. That is, the existence of a "being of reason" isn't in the real, and is totally subject to subjctive imagination, yes? That's not my understanding of the word existence.

What's your understanding of the word "exist"?

I am posting this from the abstract of philosopher's (Francisco Suárez) publication =>

====================================
Beings of reason or non-existent objects have always been a source of mind-boggling paradoxes that have vexed philosophers and thinkers in the past and present.

Consider Bertrand Russell's paradox: if A and B are not different, then the difference between A and B does not subsist. But how can a non-entity be the subject of a proposition?

Or Meinong's paradox: There are objects of which it is true that there are no such objects.

At the root of these troubling conundrums are two basic questions:
What are beings of reason?
What kind of existence do they have?

Francisco Suárez was well aware that a solution to the metaphysical questions concerning the essential character of beings of reason and their ontological status would serve as the key to solving the puzzles and paradoxes just described.

A solution to these metaphysical questions would also bring about an understanding of how we talk about beings of reason and other problems that they give rise to in the philosophy of language.

In this paper, I present Suárez's view on the nature and ontological status of beings of reason and clarify some of the following questions:
What kind of beings (entia) are beings of reason?
What kind of being (esse) do beings of reason have?

This latter concern is related to the following metaphysical issues:
What are real beings?
What is the nature and ontological status of possible beings?
What is the distinction between real beings, actual beings, and possible beings?
=============================

none of that explains what a "being of reason" means. It gives an abstract information of why it may have been conceive, but no meaning. Do you not know what the term means?

KAG:

So it doesn't really exist. That is, the existence of a "being of reason" isn't in the real, and is totally subject to subjctive imagination, yes? That's not my understanding of the word existence.

Think about this. When Einstein concieved atomic energy in 1905 (40 years before the atom was split), he was playing with beings of reason.

KAG:

What's your understanding of the word "exist"?

A being is "that which is".

KAG:

none of that explains what a "being of reason" means. It gives an abstract information of why it may have been conceive, but no meaning. Do you not know what the term means?

"Being of reason" are those things we play around with in our intellect. Roughly. The Wright brothers played around with aeroplanes in their minds, long before aeroplanes were built.

HOLD ON, DID THIS INNOVATION NOT COME ABOUT IN THE WEST AS A RESULT OF LACK OF BURIAL SPACES. ITS A HORRIBLE IDEA YEAH. DONT LIKE THE IDEA OF ALL THOSE WORMS AND BLOW FLIES EATING ME. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND ITS AN OBVIOUS INNOVATION LIKE SOME OTHER THINGS IN CHRISTIANITY AND I WOULD INDEED LIKE TO HAVE MY LITTLE PLOT WHERE I CAN ROT.

imhotep:

Think about this. When Einstein concieved atomic energy in 1905 (40 years before the atom was split), he was playing with beings of reason.

I dont' think that is right, as atomic energy, and many aspects of its formulation in physics did exist independently of Einstein. The splitting of the atom had little to do with it.

A being is "that which is".

I asked what the word "exist" means in your sense. However, let's take your conception of being. If a being is "that which is", then is anything that can be imagined a being? Further, would that make all inorganic things beings?

"Being of reason" are those things we play around with in our intellect. Roughly. The Wright brothers played around with aeroplanes in their minds, long before aeroplanes were built.

Which brings us back to: "So it doesn't really exist. That is, the existence of a "being of reason" isn't in the real, and is totally subject to subjctive imagination, yes? That's not my understanding of the word existence."

Does a man from the planet Krypton who flys and fights villians exist in the real? Hardly. It is inately understandable that the character with those traits is not only fictional but can only be realised subjectively through engagement of the imagination.

HOLD ON, DID THIS INNOVATION NOT COME ABOUT IN THE WEST AS A RESULT OF LACK OF BURIAL SPACES. ITS A HORRIBLE IDEA YEAH. DONT LIKE THE IDEA OF ALL THOSE WORMS AND BLOW FLIES EATING ME. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND ITS AN OBVIOUS INNOVATION LIKE SOME OTHER THINGS IN CHRISTIANITY AND I WOULD INDEED LIKE TO HAVE MY LITTLE PLOT WHERE I CAN ROT.

Yeah, it's actually cheaper to cremate. It costs about $200 here in the US but burial can cost between $1000-$10000 depending on the city and place.